Claimant v Global Eco Installations Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was willing and available to work from 20 January to 3 February 2025 but was prevented from working because he could not drive and the respondent failed to provide an alternative driver. The tribunal rejected the respondent's defence that there was a verbal agreement the claimant would not be paid in such circumstances, finding this was not pleaded, inconsistent with the evidence, and likely a later invention. The respondent therefore unlawfully deducted wages for 10 days when the claimant was ready and willing to work.
Facts
The claimant worked as a cavity wall technician but could not drive. His colleague normally drove him to work sites. When the colleague was absent for two weeks in January 2025 due to illness, the respondent failed to provide an alternative driver as had been promised at recruitment and as had happened on previous occasions. The claimant was willing and available to work but was not provided with work or pay for 10 days. He raised a grievance by WhatsApp which the respondent ignored, and he resigned on 3 February 2025.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent unlawfully deducted wages when it failed to pay the claimant for 10 days during which he was ready, willing and able to work but prevented from doing so because the respondent failed to provide transport. The tribunal rejected the respondent's unpleaded defence of a verbal agreement that the claimant would not be paid in such circumstances, finding the claimant's evidence more credible. The tribunal awarded £1,740 in unpaid wages plus a 25% ACAS uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to respond to the grievance, and a further £1,080 award for failure to provide written terms of employment.
Practical note
Employers cannot withhold wages from employees who are willing and available to work but prevented from doing so by logistical impediments within the employer's control, unless there is a clear contractual provision permitting non-payment in those circumstances.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 4.1 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
The respondent wholly and unreasonably failed to engage with the claimant's grievance (sent by WhatsApp on 2 February 2025) regarding non-payment of wages, breach of contract, and entitlement to contract of employment. The tribunal applied a 25% uplift to the unlawful deduction award.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000570/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Cavity wall technician
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No